Shri Rameshwar Lal Kumawat, Jaipur V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), , Jaipur

ITA 856/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5943 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNI PAL JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 201

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH SMC, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 856/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14. SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL KUMAWAT, 5/27, KESARI CHAND CHOUDHARY NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD 2(5), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AHDPK 8968 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/09/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 12 TH APRIL, 2018 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-1, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 3-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CI T (A) HAS ERRED BY NOT ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY O F HEARING WAS NOT PROVIDED. 2. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CIT (A) HAS ERRED BY DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES OF RS. 77,820/-. DETAIL S OF SAME ARE AS UNDER. FURTHER DISALLOWANCE @ 10% OF THE UNDER MENTIONED EXPENSES ARE TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AS THE ENTIRE AMOU NT OF EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. S.NO. HEAD OF A/C AMOUNT DEBITED IN P & L A/C 10% OF THE CLAIM 1. OFFICE EXPENSES 93744 9374 2 ITA NO. 856/JP/2018 SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR. 2. CONVEYANCE EXPENSES 48991 4899 3. SALARY EXPENSES 519035 51903 4. PUMP AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES 116436 11644 778206 77820 3. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT APPEAL HAS ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RS. 3,0 1,450/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT APPEAL HAS ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U /S 24(A) OF I.T. ACT AMOUNTING RS. 1,50,000/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, REDUCE A ND AMEND, WITHDRAW OF ALL OR ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF HEARING O F THE APPEAL BEFORE SMC WAS DULY NOTIFIED AT THE NOTICE BOARD AS WELL AS AT THE WEBS ITE OF THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AN D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) EX PARTE THOUGH ON M ERITS. THEREFORE, I PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL EX PARTE. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING NOT GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT (A). 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND GRANTED A NUMBER OF OPPO RTUNITIES FROM 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2017 TO 10 TH APRIL, 2018. THERE WERE 10 OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARI NG GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NONE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT OR SUBSTANCE IN THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES 3 ITA NO. 856/JP/2018 SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR. APPEAL WHEN THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN MORE THAN SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN E XPENDITURES BY THE AO @ 20% FOR WANT OF VERIFIABLE SUPPORTING EVID ENCE, VOUCHERS, BILLS ETC. 4. THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) H AS ALREADY GIVEN RELIEF BY REDUCING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% AS AGAINST 20% MAD E BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS PROPER AND REASONABLE W HEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING EVIDEN CE. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D/R AND PERUSAL OF THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A), IT APPEARS THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSE E HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), HOWEVER, NOTHING HAS BEE N PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING TH AT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH AND THROUGH SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AND NO PROOF OF PAYMENT WAS PRODUCED IN RESPECT OF THE CERTAIN EXPENSES AS DISC USSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS IT IS APPARENT FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ITSELF THAT THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES UNDER THE H EAD OF OFFICE EXPENSES, CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, SALARY EXPENSES AND PUMP & TRA NSPORTATION EXPENSES. THESE FINDINGS OF THE AO THOUGH CHALLENGED BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR OTHER FACTS. THE LD. CIT (A ) HAS DECIDED THIS IN PARA 3.2.1 AS UNDER :- 3.2.1. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCES OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY TH E APPELLANT IN ITS 4 ITA NO. 856/JP/2018 SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT @ 20% OF SUCH EXPENSES. DUR ING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE APPELL ANT. HOWEVER, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO APPEARS TO BE ON TH E HIGHER SIDE. CONSIDERING THE VOLUME AND NATURE OF BUSINESS OF TH E APPELLANT, IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO RESTRICT THE DISALL OWANCE TO 50% OF THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS. 1,55,641/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY RESTRICTED TO R S. 77,820/-. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) WHEN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO @ 20% WAS RESTRICTED TO 10% WHICH IS REASONABLE AND PROPER AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE VERIFIABLE SUPPORTING EVIDENC E FOR THE CLAIM OF THESE EXPENSES. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING REJECTING THE CLAIM OF AG RICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 3,01,450/-. 6. THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF RS. 3,01,450/- AS AGRICULTURE INCOME, HOWEVER, NO SUPPO RTING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH INCOME WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQ UENTLY THE AO HAS TREATED THE SAID INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT O F THE CLAIM. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D/R AS WELL AS PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS IN PARA 3.3.1 AS UNDER :- 3.3.1. IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THE APPELLANT HAS DECLARED A SUM OF RS. 3,01,450/- AS AGRICULTURE INCOME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO P RODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH AGRICULTURE INCOME, HOWEVER, 5 ITA NO. 856/JP/2018 SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR. NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME W AS TREATED BY AO THE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. I DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD AND THE ACTIO N OF THE AO IN TREATING AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PROD UCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO NOR ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS PRODU CED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). EVEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER FILING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM, THEN THE DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. GROUND NO. 4 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE IT ACT. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. D/R AND CAREFULLY PERUSED T HE IMPUGNED ORDERS. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS. 1,50,000/- IN PARA 4 PAGE 3 AS UNDER :- 4. AS PER ITR COMPUTATION IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME BY CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 24( A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND HE HAS NOT FUR NISHED THE SAME. IN ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF IS PRODUCED, THE CLAIM MADE U/ S 42(A) AMOUNTING OF RS. 1,50,000/- IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) IS BEING INITIATED FOR FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 6 ITA NO. 856/JP/2018 SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR. THOUGH THE DEDUCTION IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 24(A) FOR A SUM OF RS. 1,50,000/- AGAINST THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO FOR WANT OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT OF THE CLAIM, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IN PARA 3.4 .1 AS UNDER :- 3.4.1. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS 1,50,000/- U/S 24(A) OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE AO REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SU PPORT OF SUCH DEDUCTION, HOWEVER, NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE AND CONS EQUENTLY, THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. I DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD AND THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 24(A) IS HEREBY UPHELD AS THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE DEDUCTION WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, WHICH IT HAS FAILED EVEN DURING THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS. THUS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT THAT THE CLA IM UNDER SECTION 24(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS IT IS STANDARD DEDUCTION WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED AT A FIXED PERCENTAGE OF THE RENTAL INCO ME. SINCE BOTH THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR WANT O F SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED A S STANDARD DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(A) OR IT WAS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 24(B) OF THE IT ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE AO TO RECONSIDER THIS ISSUE AND DECIDE AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(A) OR IF THE CLAIM WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 24(B) THEN ONLY PR ODUCTION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED. 7 ITA NO. 856/JP/2018 SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/09/2 019. SD/- ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 19/09/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPU R. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 2(5), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 856/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR